Apparently the Kansas legislature is like the U.S. Congress. The House passes stuff that does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being enacted into law because it feels good and then adult supervision kicks in

A Kansas bill shielding anyone refusing to provide service to same-sex couples on religious grounds appears to be in serious jeopardy.

Senate President Susan Wagle took the unusual step Thursday night of issuing a statement saying the bill — which has drawn an avalanche of national criticism — didn’t have the support of a majority of Republicans in her chamber.

“A strong majority of my members support laws that define traditional marriage, protect religious institutions and protect individuals from being forced to violate their personal moral values,” Wagle said.

“We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is? ... I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. ... I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving, "Loving for All"

Last night, only days after hearing oral arguments in the case, a Virginia federal judge struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage, writing unequivocally that “[t]radition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.” The judge opened her opinion with the quote, above, from Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in the 1967 challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. She thus joined a unanimous and ever-expanding collection of federal judges who have chosen to answer the question left up in the air by the Supreme Court last Spring: Did the Windsor decision—striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act—pretty much strike down gay-marriage bans as well?

It didn’t have to play out this way. Once the elation of victory died down following the court’s Windsor decision in June, everyone found themselves asking the same question—what does this case mean for all of the other cases raising questions about gay and lesbian equality? The answer wasn’t 100 percent clear at the time. As he’s done in the past, Justice Anthony Kennedy authored a decision producing sweeping results, but rooted it in less than crystal clear reasoning. This was because Windsor has two independent parts that barely speak to one another.

The first part is all about federalism, not equality. Kennedy painstakingly explained that the federal Defense of Marriage Act offended basic principles of states’ rights because, historically, the states have always defined marriage and the federal government just goes along for the ride. By defining marriage for the federal government as only between a man and a woman, DOMA had infringed on the sovereignty of the states that define marriage otherwise, like New York did in Windsor, by including two women in its definition of marriage.

Justice Kennedy could have stopped there, but he didn’t. Instead, he wrote a second section all about equality. This part of the opinion found that the federal law was unconstitutional because it offended basic principles of equality. With a purpose to harm same-sex married couples and a wide-ranging detrimental effect on their lives, Kennedy wrote, DOMA violated the constitutional principle that a law cannot be based on hatred toward any one particular group.

Were these two parts independent bases for the decision? Or did one rely on the other? The answers to these questions have significant ramifications for gay and lesbian equality. If the equality principle from the second half of the opinion can be seen as the basis for the decision, state bans on same-sex marriage are certain to be unconstitutional. But, if the equality principle is only powerful when combined with concerns about the federal government overstepping its bounds, then maybe states can continue to define marriage as they see fit, and the federal government then has to go along. Under this interpretation, Windsor might even have been a decision that somewhat supported state bans on same-sex marriage: States have the right to choose.

It was clear when Windsor came down that the court itself was perplexed as to what the case implied for future gay-marriage litigation. The two interpretations were battled out in the dissenting opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a short dissenting opinion arguing that the federalism aspect of Windsor was essential to the case and that the case cannot possibly mean that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional as well. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing a separate dissenting opinion, used the power of his formidable sarcasm to show that Justice Kennedy’s equality opinion would throw open the floodgates for lower courts to find bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. To Scalia, this was conclusive evidence that the majority opinion was wrong. To the rest of us, it was conclusive evidence that Windsor might mean what Scalia thought it meant.

Insofar as there was confusion about what Windsor meant at the time it was decided, the lower courts across the country have now effectively settled it. A survey of publicly available opinions shows that in the eight months since Windsor, 18 court decisions have addressed an issue of equality based on sexual orientation. And in those 18 cases, equality has won every single time. In other words, not a single court has agreed with Chief Justice Roberts that Windsor is merely about state versus federal power. Instead, each has used Windsor exactly as Justice Scalia “warned”—as a powerful precedent for equality.

This hasn’t all been about marriage. Twelve decisions have addressed a substantive aspect of marriage equality since Windsor, and equality has won in all 12—with the Virginia decision now joining decisions from Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia, and two decisions each in Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio. But six other cases since Windsor have addressed different aspects of discrimination based on sexual orientation, such as discrimination on juries and employment benefits, and the side of equality has won in all six of those cases as well.

The tally is even starker when you look at the number of judges who have considered the issue. Since Windsor, in these 18 decisions, 32 different judges have considered whether Windsor is merely about the relationship between the state and federal governments or whether it is about equality. And all 32 of them have found for equality. In other words, 32 accomplished, intelligent lawyers, appointed by Democrats and Republicans, whose job it is to read precedent, have ruled for equality. Not a single one has disagreed.

One other phenomenon has occurred post Windsor that bears mentioning here. In Virginia and Pennsylvania, state attorneys general tasked with defending their state’s same-sex marriage bans have also read Windsor to mean that the ban is unconstitutional. In New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie abandoned the state’s appeal of a decision striking down the New Jersey marriage ban. And now this week, Nevada’s attorney general, a Democrat, and its Republican governor, announced that they too, could not defend the state’s gay-marriage ban anymore. Why? Windsor. As the Nevada officials explained to the 9th Circuit, the Windsor decision “signifies that discrimination against same-sex couples is unconstitutional,” and thus the arguments that the state had made previously in support of its ban “cannot withstand legal scrutiny.” That means that not just courts, but also, increasingly, high state officials read the Windsor decision just the way Justice Scalia does: to prohibit inequality in marriage. As we witnessed this month in Virginia, the historic refusal to defend a same-sex marriage ban, followed by the judicial recognition that such a ban is unconstitutional, can unfold over a matter of mere weeks.

Whatever doubt there may have been about the legal predicate of the case following Windsor is now gone. The questions left in the wake of the decision don’t matter anymore. Thirty-two judges over 18 decisions make it crystal clear: Windsor, whether it intended to or not, is a powerful decision against discrimination, and for equality.

Idaho bill would allow doctors or cops to refuse service to LGBT people on religious groundsBy Travis Gettys
Wednesday, February 12, 2014 14:08 EST

An Idaho Republican can’t think of anyone in his state who has been forced to render aid to a gay or lesbian person against their will, and he’d like to keep it that way.

Rep. Lynn Luker outlined a proposal Tuesday backed by his conservative Christian allies to shield religious people from the threat of losing their professional licenses for refusing service or employment to anyone they conclude violates their religious beliefs.

“This is pre-emptive,” said Luker, a Boise Republican. “The issue is coming, whether it’s 10 years, or 15 years, or two years.”

He cited efforts by LGBT activists in other states to end discrimination against them – including two cases where same-sex couples in Oregon and New Mexico were denied service at a bakery for their wedding cake or wedding photographs – as his motivation to act quickly in Idaho.

Unlike those two states, Idaho’s Human Rights Act offers no protections for LGBT people, and Republican lawmakers have resisted efforts to include them.

The Cornerstone Family Council is backing Luker’s proposal, which is now awaiting a full hearing, to prevent the state from passing laws to block people from “living out their faith.”

“The free expression of religious freedom is no longer understood for what it was intended,” said Julie Lynde, executive director of the conservative Christian group associated with Focus on the Family. “There’s a double standard against people of traditional religious faiths.”

The Idaho Bureau of Occupational Licenses oversees 29 boards that issue licenses in a variety of fields.

If Luker’s proposal is passed into law, it would prevent the bureau or boards from revoking the license of any professional who declined “to provide or participate in providing any service that violates the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

However, Luker noted, emergency personnel couldn’t refuse to treat someone and does not authorize the “the intentional infliction of emotional or physical injury.”

He also added that the measure protects only an individual’s license, and that employers would not be prohibited from firing workers who violated workplace policies.

A spokeswoman for the state’s American Civil Liberties Union said she couldn’t think of any previous issues this bill would address.

“This is a solution searching for a problem,” said Monica Hopkins, executive director of ACLU of Idaho.

Tea Party Senators Introduce ‘You’re Not Married Anymore’ Bill To Nullify Same-Sex Marriages

Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) have introduced a Senate version of the “State Marriage Defense Act,” a bill that would prohibit the federal government from recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages if they live in a state that doesn’t recognize them. This “You’re Not Married Anymore” bill would mean that families would lose all their federal protections simply by crossing the border into another state.

The legislation is a workaround since the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act last year, reasoning that the federal government could not refuse to recognize legally valid marriages performed in the states. Since then, the Obama administration has been using a “place of celebration” standard, meaning that as long as a same-sex couple’s marriage was valid where it was performed, it continues to be valid for most federal purposes (like tax benefits, etc.), even if they travel or move to a state that bans same-sex marriage.

According to Cruz, state authority should supersede the legal protections of these families:

CRUZ: I support traditional marriage. Under President Obama, the federal government has tried to re-define marriage, and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens. The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states. We should respect the states, and the definition of marriage should be left to democratically elected legislatures, not dictated from Washington. This bill will safeguard the ability of states to preserve traditional marriage for its residents.

Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) introduced a similar bill in the House last month, admitting that he hadn’t even read the Supreme Court’s decision before he filed it. The National Organization for Marriage has praised the bills because the values of citizens who voted to ban same-sex marriage are “continually under threat.”

Ironically, this tactic to undermine marriage equality directly contradicts the principles of another attempt, the so-called “Marriage and Religious Freedom Act,” which would allow religious individuals to disregard state definitions of marriage if they wished to discriminate against same-sex couples.